Judge: Plaintiffs must be revealed in Marsh teen sex suits

Related Links

A judge ruled Wednesday that the names of plaintiffs who filed a sex abuse lawsuit in January against Stanley Marsh 3 can be publicly released in court documents.

Judge John Board of 181st District Court heard arguments Wednesday from an attorney for the plaintiffs and attorneys representing Marsh 3 and other defendants over whether the plaintiffs’ names can be revealed to the defense.

The suit alleges that between November 2009 to June 2011, Marsh 3 enticed the teens with cash or checks to perform sex acts at his 12th-floor Chase Tower office and that the other defendants failed to report the alleged abuse. Marsh 3 and other defendants in the case have denied the suit’s claims.

Tom Riney, an attorney representing McCartt & Associates, said the defendants have been hampered by a court order barring release of the plaintiffs’ names and cannot adequately interview witnesses to disprove the suit’s allegations. Not releasing the names, he said, violates the defendants’ due process constitutional rights.

David Isaak, one of two attorneys representing Weir, said the plaintiffs also have no evidence to prove their allegations against his client.

“These adult men have admitted under oath that they know of no facts to support their allegations against David Weir,” Isaak said.

Kelly Utsinger, an Amarillo attorney representing the Amarillo millionaire, argued that the plaintiffs had no right to privacy because they performed consensual sex acts with Marsh 3 for money, illegal acts that make them eligible to be prosecuted for prostitution.

The plaintiffs, Utsinger argued, prostituted their bodies for money to “feed their voracious drug habits” and bought drugs ranging from methamphetamine and marijuana to heroin after having consensual sex with Marsh 3. But they have no legal right to anonymity, he said.

“These are hardcore drug addicts,” he told the court. “These individuals are not younger than 18. Period. ...There is no ambiguity in the statute.”

Bill Kelly, a Canyon attorney representing Marsh 3’s son, also said the plaintiffs waived any right of privacy by selling sexual favors to Marsh 3.

“There is no zone of privacy for people who commit crimes,” he said of the plaintiffs. “Mr. Pinkerton’s clients have not come into the judicial system with clean hands.”

Chad Pinkerton, a Houston attorney who filed the suit, said he respected the judge’s ruling, but is pondering an appeal.

“I believe we had a good basis for keeping those names private,” he said. “I think we have a point of law that’s questionable, that probably needs further inquiry from the appellate courts so we can move forward on a more succinct basis.”

Texas law, he argued, prevents the public release of their names and cited a series of cases in which plaintiffs have retained their anonymity. The plaintiffs, he said, were minors when they had sex with Marsh 3 and should be entitled to move forward with the case under pseudonyms.

“They know the names, they’ve been doing investigations. They’ve been knocking on doors,” Pinkerton said of defense team investigators. “I’m trying to protect my boys from public scrutiny. ...They were young. They were taken advantage of. They were enticed to do disgusting things.”

After the hearing, Utsinger said the judge reviewed the law and made the proper ruling.

“These plaintiffs were over 18 when they brought the suit. It’s a straightforward argument. It’s what the law says. It’s a purely legal question,” he said. “The judge made the right decision.”

In April 2012, a Potter County grand jury issued six criminal indictments against Marsh 3, alleging sexual assault, sexual performance by a child and indecency with a child, stemming from a criminal investigation into allegations Marsh 3 paid six teens to perform sex acts. Marsh 3 has denied the criminal charges.

Last year, Marsh 3, his wife, his son and Weir settled a series of civil lawsuits by 10 unnamed men who alleged the Amarillo millionaire paid them to perform sex acts in his office when they were minors.

In May, an Amarillo man, Stanton Coldiron, filed a similar civil lawsuit against Marsh 3, Wendy Marsh, Weir and two Marsh 3 entities — SM3 LLC and Barb Wire LP — in Potter County, alleging Marsh 3 sexually abused him when he was a teen and that the other defendants aided or abetted Marsh 3 in the alleged abuse by failing to report it. Marsh 3 and the other defendants have denied the suit’s claims.

Another unidentified man filed a similar suit against Marsh 3, his wife and son, two Marsh entities and Weir.

No further hearings have been set in the case, and parties will continue to take depositions in anticipation of a possible January civil trial. Marsh 3, who faces up to 20 years in prison on each of the multiple criminal charges against him, remains free on bond and was not present at Wednesday’s hearing.